Vr 


(5    ' 


4- 


American  Library  Institute  1921 
Preprint. 

SHORT  CATALOGUING  AND  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  CATALOGUING. 


By  Henry  Bartlett  Van  Hoesen. 


While  the  factors  entering  into  a  library  catalogue  are  common  the 
world  over,  the  degree  in  which  they  enter  in  is  by  no  meanuniform.  Even 
in  a  single  library  there  is  admittedly  plenty  of  lack  of  uniformity  between 
theory  and  practice. 

The  dictionary  definition  of  catalogue,  taken  in  connection  with  this  dis- 
cussion and  the  present  methods  of  cataloguing,  is  interesting,  if  not  even 
amusing:  "(1)  A  list,  register,  or  complete  enumeration;  in  this  simple 
sense  now  obsolete  or  archaic".  "(2)  Now  usually  distinguished  from  a 
mere  list  or  enumeration  by  systematic  or  methodical  arrangement  .  .  .  and 
often  by  the  addition  of  brief  particulars,  descriptive  or  aiding  identifica- 
tion." 

The  second  definition  is  probably  as  old  as  the  first,  since  the  earliest 
catalogue  I  have  any  intimate  acquaintance  with.  Homer's  "Catalogue  of 
Ships,"  verges  on  literary  description  and  Kallimachus  is  said  to  have  done 
some  of  his  cataloguing  of  the  Alexandrian  Library  in  poetry.  So  true, 
however,  is  the  remark  in  the  first  definition  about  the  obsoleteness  of  cata- 
loguing in  its  simple  meaning  that  one  recent  library  manual  defines  cata- 
loguing as  book  description.  This  definition  is,  I  submit,  a  rather  dangerous 
one.  Book  description  is  rather  a  definition  of  bibliography,  the  interest  of 
which  is  the  book  itself  rather  than  any  library  or  the  actual  finding  of  the 
book. 

The  object  of  this  paper  is,  however,  not  a  comprehensive  definition  of 
catalogue  but  a  rough  definition  or  distinction  of  two  kinds  of  library  cata- 
logue; the  one  "a  list,  register  or  complete  enumeration  in  systematic  ar- 
rangement, with  addition  of  brief  particulars  aiding  identification  and  loca- 
tion"; the  other,  descriptive.  That  is,  the  minimum  library  catalogue  must 
suffice  for  inventory  and  location.  This  is,  theoretically,  the  catalogue 
proper  or  short  catalogue ;  the  rest  of  the  information  on  the  cards  may  be 
called  bibliographical  (in  a  general  sense,  since  literary,  scientific,  and  criti- 
cal material  are  sometimes  included  in  the  "annotations"). 

1 


477^94 


2  <c.f^ 

LIBRARY 
!,*•  'Tliere/is  plenty  of  precedent  Io^^^qy  system.  When  Gottlieb  (Ueber 
mittelalterliehe  bibliotlieken.  Lpz,,  1890,  p.  315)  says  of  medieval  catalogues 
"Es  muss  ausdriicklieh  hervorgehoben  werden,  dass  die  Cataloge  meist  nur 
zuni  Auffinden  der  Codices  im  Allgemeinen  dienten  oder  die  Anzalil  der 
Bande  aufweisen, "  he  ignores,  for  the  moment,  such  catalogues  as  John 
Whytfield's  catalogue  of  the  library  of  St.  Martins  Priory  at  Dover  (cp. 
James,  M.  R.  Ancient  libraries  of  Canterbury  and  Dover,  and  Clark,  J.  W. 
Care  of  books). 

In  the  discussions  of  "full"  cataloguing,  these  two  adjectives  "full" 
and  "short,"  have  had  varying  connotations,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparison 
of  British  Museum  "full"  with  Library  of  Congress  methods,  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  with  the  short  of  Graesel's  Handbuch.  Pre-Cutter  discussions, 
especially,  seem  to  have  been  limited  more  or  less  to  the  abbreviation  of  the 
title,  and  "short-title"  cataloguing  is  the  proper  term  to  use.  Now,  how- 
ever, that  "full"  is  fuller,  it  is  obviously  inadvisable  to  make  the  title  suffer 
all  the  shortening,  and  Cutter 's  term  ' '  short ' '  expresses  more  accurately  the 
minimum  catalogue  as  I  have  defined  it. 

Short  cataloguing  has  been  not  infrequently  recommended  for  various 
libraries  or  types  of  library  and  this  and  that  item  of  cataloguing  have  been 
suggested  for  omission,  so  to  speak.  This  method  of  approach  is  perhaps 
due  to  the  natural  objection  of  the  conscientious  cataloguer  to  any  item 
of  reduction  in  his  standards  of  good  and  thorough  work.  But  such  an  atti- 
tude is  a  mistaken  one — and  I  speak  from  the  misfortune  of  personal  ex- 
perience. Probably  all  will  agree  that  there  are  certain  circumstances  in 
which  short  cataloguing  is  the  sound  and  proper  policy — though  they  may 
not  agree  on  what  the  certain  circumstances  are.  At  any  rate,  given  the 
certain  circumstances,  "short"  should  ask  himself — so  should  "full,"  for 
that  matter — not  "what  must  I  omit,"  or  even  "w^hat  may  I  omit,"  but 
"what  must  I  include?"  "Short"  may  be  said  to  be  guided,  at  present,  by 
codes  of  omission  but  lacks  a  code  of  cataloguing  rules.  Hence  the  variation 
in  the  understanding  of  the  term — many  of  the  replies  to  my  questionnaire 
asked,  of  course,  "M^hat  do  you  mean  by  short?"  Hence  also  much  of  the 
unsatisfactoriness  in  practice — there  are  short  catalogues,  so  called,  which 
are,  properly,  neither  short  nor  catalogues;  i.e.,  they  contain  information 
not  necessary  for  identification  and  location  of  books  and  omit  information 
necessary  for  purposes  of  identification  and  location. 

In  the  short  time  that  I  have  been  able  to  spend  on  this  paper  I  could 
not  hope  to  do  more  than  indicate  the  lines  to  be  taken  by  a  code  of  short 
catalogue  rules,  following  the  usual  outline:     (1)  Author  and  heading;  (2) 


( 


Title;  (3)  Imprint;  (4)  Collation  and  series  note;  (5)  Contents;  (6)  Notes; 
(7)  Added  entries,  analytical  entries  and  references. 

(1)  (a)  Under  whom  as  author.  Identity  should  apply  to  the  author  of 
the  book  if  it  is  to  apply  to  the  book  itself.  This  would  preclude  such  a 
practice  as  entering  under  a  subject  (for  example,  local  directories)  if  the 
author'  is  known.  Likewise  anonymous  works  should  be  entered  under  the 
author,  if  known,  as  anonyms  are  never  permanent.  One  war-time  sugges- 
tion with  us  was  that ' '  short ' '  enter  anonymous  works  under  title  or  ' '  Anon ' ' 
w'here  any  research  would  be  necessary  to  learn  the  author's  name — this  is 
one  example  of  short  cutting  below  the  standards  of  good  short  cataloguing. 

(b) Under  what  part  or  form  of  name.  The  full  name  is  necessary  to  make 
sure  the  identity  of  the  author,  not  only  as  against  other  authors  of  the 
same  name  in  the  catalogue  but  as  against  others  oiTtside  the  catalogue — in 
bibliographies  or  in  real  life.  Likewise  necessary  are  references  from  name 
forms  not  adopted.  The  rule  of  identity  applies  also,  though  in  less  degree, 
to  dates  and  designations.  But  identity  in  the  catalogue  would  not  require 
full  names,  dates,  etc.,  except  w'hen  confusion  in  the  catalogue  actually 
arises.  Bibliographically,  or  rather  scientifically,  dates  are  ahvays  impor- 
tant as  showing  the  period  with  which  the  author's  point  of  view  would 
necessarily  be  associated. 

(2)  Title.  About  the  title  has  centered  the  most  discussion  of  short- 
cutting.  A  good  system  of  rules  is  that  in  the  Library  World,  v.  2  (1889), 
118.  All  are  agreed  that  first  words  are  necessary  for  arrangement  in 
card  file  and  that  informative  material  should  not  be  omitted.  At  Princeton, 
as  a  w'ar-time  emergency  and  in  our  title-a-line  work,  shortening  was  carried 
beyond  this  point.  Informative  material  was  not  rigidly  included ;  for  ex- 
ample, an  alternative  title  often  explains  a  meaningless  first  title,  but,  where 
contents  is  given,  or  where  subjects  are  traced  on  the  face  of  the  card,  the 
information  is  there.  The  suggestions  of  omitting  indication  of  edition,  joint 
author,  pseudonym,  editor,  and  so  on,  are  impossible  if  the  identity  of  the 
book  is  to  remain  clear,  unless,  of  course,  as  in  the  case  of  the  abbreviated 
title  just  mentioned,  the  information  is  contained  elsewhere  on  the  face  of 
the  card. 

(3)  Imprint.  Identity  requires  place  and  date,  as  there  are  different  edi- 
tions of  different  dates  and  different  editions  of  the  some  date  in  different 
places.  Different  editions  of  the  same  date  and  the  same  place,  but  by  differ- 
ent publishers  had  not  occurred  to  me  until  Mr.  Currier  was  good  enough  to 
call  my  attention  to  some.  It  is  perhaps  a  question  whether  instances  are  num- 
erous enough  to  call  for  rigid  uniformity  in  insertion  of  publisher,  and  even 

3 


of  place,  until  coufusiou  hi  the  catalogue  arises — but  it  is  probably  shorter  in 
the  end  to  include  at  the  start.  Even  "publisher"  is,  of  course,  of  consider- 
able bibliographical  importance,  in  the  information  it  gives  (for  example,  as 
to  whether  the  book  is  probably  technical  or  probably  "popular")  to  the 
person  selecting  from  the  subject  catalogue. 

(4)  In  collation  the  number  of  volumes  is  necessary  for  inventory,  of 
course.  Paging  is  important  bibliographically  and  will  tell  the  user,  for 
example,  whether  he  is  consulting  an  encyclopedia  or  a  pamphlet,  but  is 
necessary,  probably,  only  in  case  of  earlj^  printed  books,  and  not  then  when 
reference,  for  identification  purjDoses,  can  be  made  to  a  bibliography.  Extra 
illustrated  books,  etc.,  require  mention  of  illustrations,  either  in  collation  or 
notes.  Large  paper  editions,  etc.,  require  similar  mention  of  size ;  though, 
in  general,  size  is  largely  merely  a  matter  of  bibliographical  tradition.  Some 
books  differ  from  others  only  in  the  matter  of  a  half-title  page  or  cover  con- 
taining series  title.  Also  series  titles  are  often  the  entry  under  which  a  book 
is  sought,  and  for  administration  purposes  the  series  note  is  often  important. 
I  question,  therefore,  whether  omission  of  series  note  is  safe. 

(5)  Whether  contents  is  necessary  for  identification  or  not  depends  on 
the  oft-discussed  question  ' '  What  is  a  book  ? ' '  That  is,  do  we  have  to  identi- 
fy an  individual  "piece"  or  work  of  an  author  included  in  a  single  volume 
of  his  selected  works?  A  similar  work  comprising  a  whole  volume  in  a  set 
of  his  w^orks?  Do  we  have  to  identify  the  different  works  or  articles  by 
different  authors  embraced  in  a  festschrift?  Similar  works  forming  indi- 
vidual volumes  in  a  collection?  Or  are  we  to  understand,  by  book,  the  unit 
expressed  in  the  comprehensive  title  ?  In  a  festschrift,  for  example,  ' '  short, ' ' 
supposing  he  limits  himself  to  the  comprehensive  title,  will  find  some  con- 
tributions so  important  as  to  make  him  exceed  his  limit  to  the  extent  of  at 
least  "partial  contents";  and  even  "full"  will  be  irritated  at  the  amount  of 
attention  he  has  to  give,  for  example,  to  a  note  on  Homer's  Iliad  IV,  2. 
Mr.  Leach,  of  our  Reference  department,  gave  me  a  recent  concrete  instance 
of  a  work  which  could  not  be  located  by  aid  of  short  catalogue  card  with- 
out contents — Shaw's  "0 'Flaherty  V.  C,"  which  contents  would  have 
located  in  "Heartbreak  House,  Great  Catherine,  and  playlets  of  the  war." 

Books  "bound  with"  other  books  are  not  properly  "contents"  but  dis- 
tinct, individual  books,  except  in  the  physical  matter  of  binding. 

(6)  Notes.  There  are  so  many  possibilities  for  notes  that  one  cannot  deal 
with  them  satisfactorily  without  going  into  considerable  detail.  The  brief 
outline  scheme  for  the  order  of  descriptive  and  bibliographical  notes  given 
in  the  Library  of  Congress  supplementary  rules  may,  however,  answer  for 

present  purposes : — 

4 


(a)  Physical  description  is  not  necessary  for  identification  except  in  case 
of  incunabula  and  other  bibliographical  monuments,  "association"  books, 
and  unique  things  in  general,  where  the  identification  can  not  be  made  by 
simple  reference  to  a  bibliography. 

(b)  Notes  explaining  the  title  are  necessary  for  identification  and  inven- 
tory when  the  title  is  copied  from  a  source  other  than  the  title-page,  when 
"title  varies"  in  different  volumes,  etc.  "Short"  may  forego,  though  with 
utmost  reluctance,  the  bibliographical  notes  explaining  titles  which  are 
comprehensive  of  a  variety  of  contents  or  more  general  than  the  contents 
warrant,  titles  which  are  not  comprehensive  of  contents  or  too  specific,  and 
titles  which  are  obscure  or  misleading — whether  such  titles  are  deficient  aa 
regards  the  contents  of  the  book  or  the  literary  form  in  which  the  book  is 
written  (cp.  U.  S.  Department  of  education.  Special  report  on  libraries. 
Cutter's  Eules,  Berwick  Sayers'  Manual,  Savage's  Manual  of  descriptive 
annotations,  etc.). 

(c)  Notes  on  authorship,  editor,  etc.,  are  necessary  in  any  catalogue  if 
heading  and  title  have  not  made  their  identities  clear.  Annotations  as  to 
the  author's  qualifications  and  point  of  view,  scope  of  the  work,  etc.,  are 
admittedly  dangerous,  even  jn  a  bibliographical  catalogue.  I  wish,  how- 
ever, to  commend  them  in  passing  as  of  more  service  to  the  "greenhorn" 
scientific  inquirer  in  the  subject  catalogue  than  all  the  other  bibliographical 
items  put  together. 

(d)  Bibliographical  history  of  the  book  may  be  passed  over  here  except 
to  say  that  inventory  and  identification  should  probably  go  far  enough  to 
state  the  fact  of  the  non-existence  of  parts  of  books  whose  existence  is  in- 
dicated by  the  title,  and  insert  the  "No  more  published"  note. 

(7)  Added  entries,  references,  etc.,  are  chiefly  aids  to  the  location  of  books. 
References,  at  least,  are  necessary  for  identification  purposes  where  the 
author  is  determined  arbitrarily  (as  often  in  the  case  of  collections  or,  for 
example,  "United  States  Laws,  Statutes,  etc.")  and  where  the  form  of  name 
may  not  be  generally  known  (anonymous  and  pseudonymous  w^orks,  etc.). 
It  is  only  common  justice  to  give  a  joint  author  an  added  entry — a  joint 
author  may  fairly  claim  the  privilege  of  finding  his  own  work  under  his  own 
name.  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  countenance,  even  theoretically,  omitting 
"editor  cards,"  but  "short"  might  maintain  that  it  should  be  theoretically 
possible  to  educate  students  of  literature  to  look  for  Plato  under  Plato  first 
rather  than  under  Jowett,  and  that  editors  of  periodicals  deserve  oblivion 
more  or  less.  Cutter  suggests  entering  civil  actions  only  under  the  party 
first  mentioned. 


Analytical  entries,  like  contents,  depend  on  the  unit  ("book,"  or  "title") 
to  be  identified  and  located.  Added  entries  or  references  nnder  title  may  be 
denied  unjustifiable  by  "short"  where  the  author's  identity  is  clear. 

Full  and  short  may  agree  that  the  fewer  subject  cards  the  better.  The 
correctness  of  the  first  subject  entry  is  the  important  thing  rather  than  the 
number  of  subject  entries  made.  The  more  accurately  the  cataloguer  is 
able  to  determine  the  topic  of  a  book  the  less  likely  he  should  be  to  multiply 
subject  entries  on  the  one  hand  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  diminish  them  by 
lumping  together,  under  comprehensive  headings,  books  which  are  not  com- 
in'ehensive.  But  "subjects"  are  too  big  a  subject  to  enter  into  here;  and  sub- 
ject headings  have  been  dealt  with  from  good  theoretical  points  of  view  by  a 
number  of  people — notably  Mr.  Bishop  and  Mr,  Hanson.  "Short"  might 
refuse  to  identify  and  locate  "what  books  the  library  has  on  a  given  sub- 
ject," but  is  not  likely  to  take  such  a  drastic  minimum  unless  in  case  of  dire 
necessity. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  form  headings,  which  are  part  of  Cutter's  system, 
are  probably  less  necessary  nowadays,  thanks  to  current  bibliographies  of 
fiction,  drama,  etc.;  and  "short"  may  find  it  not  absolutely  necessary  to  be 
able  "to  show  what  the  library  has  in  a  gives  kind  of  literature."  At  the 
same  time  it  should  be  remarked  that  certain  form  headings  are  not  ade- 
quately represented  in  current  bibliographies,  e.g.,  manuscript  facsimiles, 
library  catalogues,  etc. — or  if  they  are  represented  in  bibliographies,  are 
not  represented  in  large  enough  number  in  the  library  so  that  the  general 
bibliographies  can  be  a  guide  to  what  the  library  has,  e.g.,  manuscripts  and 
incunabula. 

I  have  endeavored  here  roughly  to  distinguish  "short"  and  bibliographi- 
cal cataloguing  and  to  define  short  cataloguing  and  outline  a  code  of  rules 
for  "short."  Bibliographical  cataloguing,  though  included  in  my  title, 
needs  no  detailed  treatment  as  it  is  provided  for  by  the  codes  of  cataloguing 
rules. 
)  The  choice  between  the  two  methods  of  cataloguing  will  depend  on  prac- 
(  tical  considerations  of  use.  One  fundamental  consideration  is  the  relation 
of  cataloguing  to  bibliography.  Mr.  Fletcher  (LJ  1905,  p.  141-144)  looked 
to  the  "catalogue  of  the  future"  to  have  less  references  from  one  card  to 
another  and  more  references  to  bibliographies.  Dr.  Richardson  says  (LJ 
1916,  p.  31)  :  "It  is  not  likely  that  this  method  will  ever  wholly  supersede 
a  central  card  catalogue,  although  there  is  a  possibility  even  of  that.  The 
short-title  entry  contemplates  some  source  of  fuller  cataloguing  where  the 
user  of  the  library  can  get  all  the  bibliographical  details."     On  the  other 

6 


hand,  from  the  point  of  view  of  use,  he  said  (ibid.,  p.  28)  :  "It  was  estimated 
that  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  the  questions  asked  of  the  catalogue  in  the 
small  classified  libraries  could  be  answered  by  a  simple  author  catalogue  with 
one  hundred  letter  entry. ' '  A  catalogue  entry  limited  to  one  hundred  letter 
spaces  means,  of  course,  radical  shortening.  Mr.  Currier  seems  to  share  this 
latter  view  in  his  paper  on  short  methods  at  the  Saratoga  meeting  of  the 
American  Library  Association  (published  in  part  in  the  bulletin  of  that 
meeting)  "at  present,  I  should  formulate  the  principal  aim  of  the  Harvard 
catalogue,  in  so  far  as  the  author  entries  are  concerned,  not  as  the  forming 
of  a  repertory  of  titles,  each  bibliographically  complete,  but  as  the  providing 
of  a  handy  tool  to  bring  to  the  searcher,  with  as  little  trouble  and  delay  as 
possible,  a  given  book."  But  his  contribution  to  this  present  discussion  (see 
below)  emphasizes  the  importance  of  close  relation  of  card  catalogue  and 
stack  use  of  books. 

Eeplies  to  my  questionnaire  (from  Cornell,  Oberlin,  Illinois,  Minneapolis, 
Milwaukee,  Buffalo,  New  York)  took  exception  to  the  expression  "conven- 
ient bibliographies ' '  and  indicated  a  preference  for  full  cataloguing  methods 
because  bibliographies  are  still  too  few,  not  up  to  date,  not  well  arranged 
and,  too  often,  compiled  on  "short"  methods.  Mr,  Root  says :  "We  find  the 
fullness  of  our  catalogue  much  more  satisfactory  than  the  brevity  of  most 
bibliographies."  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Foss  (Brooklyn)  says:  "In  the 
long  run  it  will  probably  be  necessary  to  depend  to  a  large  extent  upon 
printed  bibliographies. ' '  If  bibliographies  or  some  one  Library  catalogue — 
as  the  Library  of  Congress  is  doing — would  fully  describe  the  book  once, 
and  that  description  could  be  available  to  all,  how  many  repetitions,  dupli- 
cations of  the  same  work,  the  world  over,  could  be  saved !  If  bibliographies 
were  sufficiently  bibliographical,  catalogues  could  be  merely  catalogues  (i.e., 
short). 

But,  as  it  is,  a  library  possessed  of  the  most  complete  and  up  to  date 
bibliographical  collection  possible,  but  having  merely  a  short  catalogue,  will) 
still  have  to  depend  on  its  reference  librarian's  individual  knowledge  and 
enterprise  for  a  number  of  questions  which  a  full  catalogue  might  answer — 
and  this  number  is  not  easy  to  get  at. 

In  reply  to  my  own  questionnaire,  I  may  say :  These  questions  will  not  be 
asked  by  everybody  on  all  occasions.  For  instance,  the  users  of  a  university 
library  may  be  divided  into  staff,  faculty,  students,  and  general  readers,  al- 
though all,  to  a  certain  extent,  belong  to  the  last  class.  The  staff,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Circulation  Department,  will  use  the  bibliographical  part  of 
the  cards.     The  professors,  in  my  experience,  will  not,  but  come  only  for 

7 


definite  books,  or  even  wish  to  disregard  the  card  catalogue  altogether  (not 
specifically  our  card  catalogue,  but  any  catalogue)  and  go  to  a  class  of  books 
on  the  shelves.  The  students  come  in  search  of  books  to  which  they  have 
been  referred  by  the  professors,  or  at  other  times,  are  part  of  the  last  class, 
the  general  reader.  General  readers  generally  have  recourse  to  the  reference 
librarian  for  all  sorts  of  information ;  the  fullest  catalogue  cannot  hope  to  be 
his  equal;  and  "short"  may  fairly  ask  whether  he  cannot  be  expected  to 
do  the  extra  work  of  a  "  full ' '  catalogue.  Although  the  rest  of  the  staff  will 
agree  with  him  in  finding  use  for  "full'  cards,  he  represents  that  class  of  our 
users  who  are  looking  for  something,  "they  don't  know  what,"  as  against 
the  other  classes  who  ' '  do  know  what ' '  and  who  are  often  more  worried  than 
helped  by  ' '  full  information. ' '  In  sending  out  my  questionnaire  I  had,  there- 
fore, the  reference  department  chiefly  in  mind. 

As  it  is  possible  that  those  who  replied  to  the  questionnaire  will  wish  to 
amplify  their  statements  in  the  following  discussion,  I  will  summarize  very 
briefly. 

(1)  No  actual  statistics  are  available  as  to  the  percentage  of  questions 
asked  which  could  be  answered  by  a  full  catalogue  but  not  by  a  short  cata- 
logue and  convenient  bibliographies.  There  was  universal  agreement  on  this. 

(2)  For  "full,"  stating  no  exceptions — Mr.  Belden,  Mr.  Strohm,  Mr.  Root, 
Mr.  Steiner. 

(3)  "Full"  necessary  because  of  certain  local  conditions  or  needs — Mr. 
Godard,  Mr.  Windsor. 

(4)  "Full"  necessary  to  answer  certain  questions — Mr.  MerriH,  Mr.  John- 
ston— for:  (1)  Serials  which  have  changed  titles;  (2)  Works  with  vague, 
ambiguous  or  deceptive  titles;  (3)  Rare  books;  (4)  Differing  editions;  (5) 
Composite  works  of  one  or  various  authors,  (a)  Enabling  user  to  call  for  one 
volume  needed,  (b)  Indicating  scope  of  the  collection.  For  such  questions  as 
the  following:  1.  What  short  stories  are  contained  in  Alice  Brown's  Mead- 
ow-grass ?  2.  Is  a  certain  book  long  or  short  ?  3.  Which  books  on  a  certain 
subject  contain  bibliographies?  4.  Does  this  history  contain  maps?  5.  In 
which  of  the  biographies  of  Jefferson  am  I  likely  to  find  a  portrait  of  him  ? 
6.  Which  volume  of  Bacon's  Works  (Spedding's  ed.)  contains  his  literary 
works?  7.  Which  volumes  of  the  Harvard  classics  have  you?  8.  In  what 
book  am  I  likely  to  find  a  picture  of  a  rambler  rose  ? 

(5)  Fuller  information  asked  of  LC  (quoted  from  Mr.  Martel's  letter)  : 
"Requests  for  fuller  entries  reach  us  by  correspondence,  reported  omissions 
on  the  printed  cardfj,  etc.,  etc.  The  data  asked  for  are  various:  Author's 
name  (additional  names)  ;  Author's  dates;  Collation,  especially  as  to  plates, 

8 


maps,  cancels,  addenda,  etc.,  etc. ;  Dates  of  publication  if  extending  over  a 
period  of  two  or  more  years j  Variations  in  editors,  publishers;  Other  edi- 
tions, and  contents  notes,  subjects,  miscellaneous  bibliographical  data  con- 
cerning the  book." 

(6)  "Full"  necessary  except,  possibly,  collation  or  size  in  collation — Mr. 
Joseplison,  Miss  Hutchinson  (Minneapolis). 

(7)  "Short"  satisfactory  for  certain  groups  of  users — Mr.  Austen,  Mr. 
Eames,  Mr.  Hanson,  Mr.  Henry. 

(8)  "Short"  possible  for  certain  types  of  books — Mr.  Lydenberg,  Mr. 
Montgomery,  Miss  Barnstead  (Toronto  Public  Library). 

(9)  "Short"  practical  for  certain  libraries  of  a  group — Miss  Hitchler,  Mr. 
Koopman. 

(10)  One  catalogue  complete,  or  an  LC  depository  file,  other  catalogues   ^ 
short — Mr.  Brown,  Mr.  Henry,  Miss  Hitchler,  Dr.  Richardson.  ' 

(11)  Objections  to  "full"  possible  on  ground  of  congestion — Mr.  Eames, 
Mr.  Foss,  Mr.  Godard,  Mr.  Henry. 

(12)  Short  in  certain  particulars  or  on  certain  cards — Miss  Farrar 
(Springfield),  Miss  Prevost  (Newark). 

(13)  "Twenty-five  to  thirty  per  cent,  of  our  work  could  not  be  done  by 
means  of  a  short  catalogue  or  by  bibliographic  lists  .  .  .  this  is  only  as  to 
amount  .  .  .  the  value  of  work  ...  is  many  times  that  of  the  simpler  work. ' ' — 
Dr.  Andrews. 

(14)  "Short"  ninety  to  one  hundred  per  cent,  satisfactory  for  a  given  or 
given  type  of  library — Mr.  Gifford,  Mr.  Jones,  Mr.  Koopman  (of  the  col- 
lege library),  Mr.  Smith,  Miss  Turvill  (Wisconsin  Free  Library  Commission), 
Miss  Marvin  (Oregon  State  Library),  Mr.  Utley  (for  small  public  library). 

(15)  The  reference  librarian's  expedient  to  supplement  "the  ordinary 
catalogue"  is  indicated  by  Mr.  Foss:  "Reference  department  keeps  a  card 
list  of  references  to  topics  not  brought  out  in  the  public  catalogue. ' ' 

Mr.  Currier,  with  whom  I  had  exchanged  one  or  two  letters  on  this  topic, 
was  good  enough  to  read  the  first  draft  of  this  paper  and  to  forward  to  me 
some  comments,  both  his  own  and  those  suggested  in  a  meeting  of  the 
"supervisors,"  together  with  a  separate  memorandum  from  Professor  Cool- 
idge.  Both  he  and  Professor  Coolidge  have  consented  to  my  making  use  of 
their  comments  here,  stipulating  only  that  due  allowance  be  made  for  the 
facts  that  the  comments,  while  in  themselves  deliberate,  were  written  hastily 
and  not  for  publication.  I  beg  therefore  to  introduce  these  here  in  order 
to  open  the  written  discussion. 


Written  Discussion. 

Archibald  Gary  Coolidge,  Director  Harvard  University  Library,  contrib- 
uted the  following  memorandum,  explaining  that  although  it  represents 
slowly  matured  ideas,  it  Avas  dashed  off  on  the  spur  of  the  moment  and 
merely  sums  up  for  Mr.  Currier's  benefit  his  reflections  after  reading  draft 
of  paper  and  after  a  conversation  with  him. 

(Memorandum  for  Mr.  Currier  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Van  Hoesen's  article 
on  Short  Cataloguing  and  Bibliographical  Cataloguing.) 

Mr.  Van  Hoesen's  article  contains  a  number  of  interesting  remarks  but 
he  leaves  out  of  account  one  of  the  most  important  questions,  if  not  the 
most  important  question,  in  regard  to  catalo^iing  in  a  library  like  ours, — 
namely  whether  all  books  should  be  catalogued  in  the  same  way  or  whether 
one  should  frankly  recognize  that  the  cataloguing  should  have  some  rela- 
tion to  theii"  value.  I  am  convinced  that  this  last  must  be  taken  increasingly 
into  account  in  spite  of  the  obvious  fact  that  the  rules  laid  down  can  only  be 
very  broad  general  ones  and  that  it  will  be  easy  to  point  out  many  individual 
instances  where  their  application  may  seem  absurd.  In  this  Library  we 
have  already  gone  some  distance  in  this  respect.  We  do  not  catalogue  a 
Czech  work  on  sculpture  in  the  way  that  we  do.  an  English  one,  nor  do  we 
treat  a  handbook  on  chemistry,  written  thirty  years  ago,  with  the  same 
fulness  that  we  do  a  new  publication  on  the  same  subject.  In  fact,  that  a 
pamphlet  of  ten  pages  is  not  in  most  libraries  catalogued  as  fully  as  a  six 
volume  publication  is  another  recognition  of  the  same  principle. 
•  In  the  second  place,  when  you  can  get  work  done  cheaply  for  you  by 
some  one  else,  it  is  a  reason  for  cataloguing  books  to  which  you  could  not 
spare  sufficient  money  yourself.  This  applies  particularly  to  printed  cards. 
Third  I  am  more  and  more  convinced  that  scholars'  libraries  like  this  one 
must,  however  unwillingly,  recognize  the  fact  that  the  subject  catalogue 
is  meant  for  the  general  public,  not  the  specialist.  Librarians  in  general 
may  not  yet  be  ready  to  admit  this  but  all  I  have  seen  of  this  library  and 
of  its  use  by  the  faculty  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  strengthens  me  in  my 
conviction.  The  principle  is  truer  now  than  it  was  twenty-five  years  ago, 
owing  to  the  multiplication  of  learned  periodicals  and  bibliographies  in  the 
meantime.  A  subject  catalogue  inevitably  contains  a  mass  of  stuff  of  infer- 
ior value  and  omits  much  that  is  of  considerable  value.  Many  of  the  articles 
in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  and  many  of  the  chapters  in  certain  large 
works  are  of  greater  value  for  the  student  of  the  subject  with  which  they 
deal  than  are  most  of  the  references  to  it  in  our  catalogue.  '  The  catalogue 
can  at  best  pretend  to  be  little  more  than  a  collection  of  monographs,  some 

10 


of  them  quite  useless.  Professors  and  other  scholars  can  get  little  out  of  it 
for  their  own  topics ;  on  other  topics  they  merely  form  a  part  of  the  general 
public. 

The  conclusion  that  becomes  ever  firmer  in  my  mind  is  that  sooner  or 
later  we  and  many  other  libraries  had  better  give  up  the  attempt  to  put  in 
our  subject  catalogue  any  works  for  which  we  do  not  get  Library  of  Con- 
gress cards  or  others  of  the  sort.  Library  of  Congress  cards  cover  and  will 
cover  the  works  which  it  is  most  important  to  catalogue  fully.  They  are 
cheaper  than  our  own  work  and  they  include  nearly  everything  that  is 
necessary  for  our  student  and  other  general  public,  apart  from  the  specialist. 
Exceptions  may  be  made  to  this  rule  for  certain  classes  of  books  which  we 
wish  particularly  to  bring  out,  for  instance  incunabula.  I  am  not  urging  the 
immediate  adoption  of  this  rule.  In  a  certain  sense  it  means  an  abdication, 
therefore  I  am  not  desirous  of  putting  it  into  force  any  sooner  than  we  have 
to.  Also  and  more  important  is  the  fact  that  we  are  still  building  up  our 
collection  of  fundamental  and  rare  works  which  we  are  glad  to  have  fully 
catalogued  in  any  case.  We  have  made  great  progress  in  this  respect  in 
the  last  twenty  years  and  the  number  of  such  works  that  we  are  likely  to 
acquire  and  the  Library  of  Congress  not  likely  to  have  is  rapidly  diminishing, 
and  in  all  probability  will  diminish.  Ten  years  hence  we  can,  I  think,  reduce 
ourselves  for  subject  cataloguing  to  Library  of  Congress  cards  without  ser- 
ious disadvantage.    We  may  have  to  do  so  much  sooner. 

T.  Franklin  Currier,  Assistant  Librarian,  Harvard  College  Library — I 
have  this  morning  been  re-reading  your  memorandum  with  a  good  deal  of 
interest,  and  yesterday  read  it  before  our  supervisors.  It  formed  the  occa- 
sion for  more  or  less  discussion,  and  in  replying  you  must  remember  that 
what  I  say  is  not  entirely  a  statement  of  ideas  that  have  origianted  entirely 
in  my  own  brain,  but  is  the  result  of  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  and  of  experi- 
ment. It  was  Miss  Tucker,  who  has  charge  of  our  cataloguing,  that  brought 
out  yesterday  the  thought  that  I  amplify  below,  that  the  use  of  the  Library 
of  Congress  cards  gives  us  a  very  different  standpoint  in  the  question  of 
"full"  versus  "short"  cataloguing  as  we  look  at  it  today,  from  the  Avay  it 
was  looked  at  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Cutter's  earlier  editions;  which  had  the 
additional  difference  of  being  compiled  for  the  printed  page  catalogue  rather 
than  for  the  card  catalogue. 

As  I  have  stated  above  we  feel  here  that  the  use  of  the  Library  of  Con- 
gress cards  simplifies  very  much  the  question  of  full  cataloguing.  These 
cards  cover  practically  all  the  books  which  are  asked  for  by  the  ordinary 
college  undergraduate,  and  certainly  would  include  all  that  are  desired  by 

11 


the  "green-horn  scientific  inquirer"  that  you  refer  to.  Except  for  sugges- 
tions -which  might  influence  the  Library  of  Congress  in  preparing  their 
cards  this  consideration  pares  down  the  discussion  to  a  study  of  "short" 
versus  "bibliographical"  cataloguing  in  the  case  of  books  used  by  the  higher 
grade  workers.  The  comparatively  few  titles  bought  by  this  Library  for 
younger  students  which  are  not  contained  in  the  Library  of  Congress  file 
can  be  handled  with  any  degree  of  fullness  without  inducing  any  severe 
strain  on  our  staff. 

Furthermore  the  question  of  language,  date,  rarity  and  technical  or  non- 
technical character  of  the  books  must  be  considered  when  we  discuss  full 
and  short  cataloguing.  Incunabula  for  instance  have  been  so  frequently  and 
so  well  described  that  only  a  very  brief  card  is  necessary  in  our  catalogue 
with  proper  reference  to  printed  descriptions.  Even  a  rare  book  Avhich  has 
not  previously  been  described  with  fullness  may  be  sufficiently  indicated  in 
our  catalogues  by  a  very  brief  title.  .  .  .  We  do  not  believe  that  we  should 
spend  undue  time  in  hunting  for  the  printer  and  place  of  publication.  The 
author,  brief  title,  date,  and  editor  sufficiently  indicate  the  edition. 

Again,  does  not  the  use  to  be  made  of  the  card  determine  its  fullness? 
The  Library  of  Congress  sends  out  its  cards  to  serve  as  complete  biblio- 
graphical descriptions  of  books  in  Washington.  Their  purpose  is  not  alone  to 
indicate  that  the  books  are  available  in  Washington,  but  to  give  more 
or  less  final  bibliographical  descriptions  to  aid  the  student  and  the  librarian 
the  world  over  in  collating  other  copies,  and  determining  the  subject  matter 
or  other  characteristics  of  the  books  described.  Since  the  Library  of  Con- 
gress is  doing  this  work  for  several  hundred  institutions  it  is  justified  in 
putting  in  the  additional  labor  necessary  for  such  fulness,  and  we  trust  it 
will  always  be  sufficiently  provided  with  funds  permitting  it  to  continue  this 
service.  The  Harvard  typed  cards  on  the  other  hand  are  not  spread  abroad ; 
the  books  to  which  they  refer  are  presumably  easily  accessible  to  those  who 
see  the  cards  and  consequently  the  titles  may  be  abbreviated,  because  as 
you  yourself  intimate  about  the  only  use  made  of  these  cards  is  to  serve 
as  means  of  procuring  as  quickly  as  possible  a  given  book.  In  other  words, 
in  oiTr  catalogues  the  typed  cards  differ  from  the  Library  of  Congress  cards 
in  representing  books  not  used  by  the  person  who  depends  mainly  on  the 
card  catalogue  for  information  about  the  books  he  uses.  To  put  it  in  another 
way,  when  cataloguing,  weight  should  be  given  to  the  stack  use  of  books  in 
determining  the  amount  of  money  spent  in  preparing  the  cards. 

After  all,  indeecl,  it  reduces  itself  to  a  case  of  dollars  and  cents,  and  the 
choice  betwen  short  and  bibliographical  cataloguing  rests  with  whether  the 


12 


information  so  painstakingly  supplied  is  worth  the  actual  number  of  dollars 
(not  cents,  alas)  bestowed  on  it?  I  intended  no  pun,  but  let  it  stand,  there 
is  some  truth  there. 

There  is  always  a  danger  in  o;ir  making  our  rules  too  sweeping,  a  method 
that  must  be  applied  to  one  book,  should  not  be  applied  to  another,  A 
Chinese  book  kept  in  a  Chinese  collection  does  not  need  subject  headings, 
perhaps  not  even  an  author  card.  Certainly  our  cards  for  the  Chinese  en- 
cyclopedia do  not  need  to  contain  the  contents. 

The  results  of  your  questionnaire  will  be  worth  while  if  they  bring  out 
any  consensus  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  reference  librarians  and  order  de- 
departments,  as  to  what  must  perforce  be  placed  on  the  cards  and  what  extra 
cards  we  can  do  without. 

I  add  here  a  few  disconnected  notes  that  come  to  my  mind  as  I  read  your 
paper : 

1.  How  are  you  going  to  enter  a  directory  when  the  title  is  very  non- 
committal (e.g.,  "Boston  directory"  or  "Maiden  directory"  for  1918)  ?  You 
surely  do  not  want  a  title  entry  and  also  a  subject  entry.  You  may  be  inter- 
ested to  know  that  in  our  public  catalogue  we  sometimes  omit  author  head- 
ings, entering  books  under  the  subject  headings  only,  thus  a  compilation  of 
educational  laws  which  the  Library  of  Congress  might  enter  under  ' '  Nevada 
— Laws,  Statutes,"  we  place  under  "Education — Nevada,"  in  the  public 
catalogue,  though  in  our  official  catalogue  we  have  the  Library  of  Congress 
card  under  the  Library  of  Congress  heading.  We  refuse  to  accumulate  under 
the  heading  "United  States — Laws"  the  immense  heterogeneous  mass  of 
titles  which  would  accumulate  if  we  permitted  all  the  Library  of  Congress 
entries  of  this  nature  to  go  in. 

2.  [Dates  and  designations.]  Your  phrase  "identity  would  not  require 
their  insertion,  etc."  "Why  does  this  not  apply  just  as  much  to  full  names  as 
to  dates?  We  believe  that  it  does,  and  refuse  to  spend  much  time  hunting 
up  a  full  name  and  certainly  a  middle  name  unless  there  is  actual  conflict  in 
our  catalogue. 

3.  Examples  of  books  with  same  place  and  date  but  different  publishers 
occur  in  books  published  in  Paris  in  the  seventeenth  century  hy  members 
of  the  association  of  booksellers.  See  Desfeuille's  "Notice  bibliographique" 
in  vol.  xi  of  the  Despois  and  Mesnard  ed.  of  Moliere  (Hachette,  1893),  page 
1,  55  &c.  Here  again  a  sweeping  rule  works  badly,  in  cataloguing  a  long 
series  of  editions  of  the  works  of  an  author  the  indication  of  publishers  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  while  such  information  is  less  necessary  (though  fre- 
quently useful)  in  cataloguing  works  of  minor  authors. 

13 


4.  We  leave  out  paging  freely  but  in  cataloguing  pamphlets  we  add  the 
word  ''Pamphlet"  on  the  line  below  the  title  in  order  to  indicate  to  the 
reader  the  character  of  the  item ;  this  is  useful  if  the  pamphlet  is  placed 
under  a  subject  heading, 

5.  Might  it  not  be  well  to  intimate  that  cataloguing  policies  must  vary 
with  the  library,  in  other  words  the  aims  of  different  libraries  differ; 
consequently  a  catalogue  department  must  do  its  work  in  accordance  with 
the  aims  and  objects  of  the  catalogue  of  the  particular  institution  for  which 
it  is  working.  I  would  not  suggest  the  same  fulness  of  catalogue  card  for 
our  ' '  Child  Memorial  Library  "  of  a  few  thousand  volumes  as  I  would  for  our 
own  huge  card  catalogue. 

6.  Our  "short'  methods  do  not  imply  the  existence  of  any  special  biblio- 
graphical catalogue,  but  they  do  imply,  as  I  have  suggested,  the  presence 
of  the  book  within  easy  reach  of  the  person  using  the  catalogue. 

Winifred  G.  Barnstead,  The  Public  Library  of  Toronto — We  find  that  our 
Reference  Library  requires  a  very  full  catalogue.  Practically  all  the  details 
such  as  series  notes,  bibliographical  notes,  contents,  etc.,  are  being  con- 
stantly used.  Our  Reference  librarians  depend  upon  the  catalogue  to  assist 
them  in  finding  material,  and  on  this  account  our  catalogue  is  very  full. 
Any  library,  which  is  helping  in  research  work  should  be  fully  catalogued. 

On  the  contrary  our  Circulating  Libraries  have  never  had  full  catalogues, 
and  we  have  never  felt  the  need  of  giving  details  on  our  cards.  All  the 
books  are  accessible,  and  the  short  form  of  card  with  author,  title,  publisher 
and  date  seems  sufficient.  Occasionally  the  branch  librarian  asks  for  a  series 
note  on  the  card. 

C.  W.  Andrews  of  the  John  Crerar  Library — The  Reference  Librarian  gives 
me  an  estimate,  which,  from  my  own  experience,  I  think  must  be  approxi- 
mately correct,  that  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  per  cent,  of  our  work  could 
not  be  done  by  means  of  a  short  catalogue,  or  by  bibliographic  lists.  Please 
understand  that  this  is  only  as  to  amount.  As  to  the  value,  I  think  it  can  be 
fairly  stated  that  the  value  of  the  work  thus  accomplished  is  many  times 
that  of  the  simpler  work. 

Cornelia  Marvin,  Librarian  Oregon  State  Library,  Salem — We  have  the 
short  form  catalogue  in  our  State  Library.  We  resort  to  printed  bibliog- 
raphies for  bibliographical  information.  We  believe  that  economy  in  cata- 
loguing is  so  necessary  that  we  economize  in  every  possible  way.  We  use 
the  shelf  list  for  a  subject  catalogue  for  everything  except  analyticals  or 
for  books  not  classified  with  their  main  subjects,  and  for  books  which  have 
double  heading.    We  do  not  attempt  to  make  a  bibliographical  catalogue. 

14 


Walter  L.  Brown,  Librarian,  The  Buffalo  Public  Library — Of  course,  we 
appreciate  that  very  seldom  is  a  card  catalogue  consulted  by  the  borrowers 
for  bibliographical  information.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  such  detail  on 
the  Library  of  Congress  cards,  which  is  very  little  used.  It  is  of  value  at 
times  to  the  Library  workers.  We  can  readily  understand,  however,  that 
the  use  of  the  catalogue  of  a  Public  Library  is  very  different  from  the  use 
of  the  catalogue  of  a  University  or  a  Reference  Library.  Our  desire  is  to 
make  our  catalogue  as  easy  to  use  as  possible  by  the  public — the  untrained 
user.  To  make  it  as  simple,  as  direct,  as  little  complicated  as  we  can — 
leaving  the  bibliographical  information  preferably  for  the  shelf  list. 

Wilberforce  Eames — I  can  only  mention  my  personal  experience  as  bibli- 
ographer in  the  limited  field  of  early  printed  books  and  early  Americana,  in 
which  I  have  found  the  short-title  check  list  absolutely  necessary  as  a  "time 
saver."  The  full  title  bibliographical  catalogue,  which  is  the  ultimate  desire 
of  every  bibliographer,  is  unfortunately  limited  by  time  and  expense.  The 
quickest  way  to  get  a  survey  of  any  subject,  is  to  make  a  title-a-line  check 
list  of  the  best  books  relating  to  it.  Like  a  short  advertisement,  it  is  the 
short  lists  that  get  the  most  attention,  and  they  are  the  best  helps  for  a 
busy  man. 

The  title-a-line  check  list  applies  as  much  to  manuscript  as  to  printed  lists, 
and  in  fact  more  so.  I  believe  that  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  a  short  title  card 
catalogue  of  books  in  any  particular  library,  will  answer  the  purpose,  be- 
cause the  books  themselves  are  available  for  further  details,  not  given  on 
the  cards. 

Thomas  L.  Montgomery,  State  Librarian  of  Pennsylvania — I  don't  know 
anything  about  short  cataloguing.  Anything  Avhich  does  not  contain  the  in- 
formation required  bibliographically  might  just  as  well  be  out  of  existence. 
It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  less  reason  for  short  cataloguing  now  than  ever 
before,  for  most  of  the  libraries  subscribe  for  the  printed  cards  of  the  Li- 
brary of  Congress. 

Willard  Austen,  Librarian,  Cornell  University  Library — We  catalogue 
pretty  fully  for  our  users,  although  no  doubt  for  the  general  student  use  a 
short  form  would  probably  serve  every  purpose,  as  students  need  little  more 
than  a  finding  list. 

This,  however,  would  not  serve  the  needs  of  scholars.  We  have  had  some 
complaint  about  the  early  Harvard  card  entries  being  too  meagre  and  no 
doubt  this  is  what  caused  Harvard  to  change  in  the  later  issues  to  the  fuller 
form. 

The  trouble  with  the  "convenient  bibliography"  is  oftentimes  they  are 

15 


not  made  by  a  trained  worker  and  are  so  lacking  in  orderly  arrangement 
that  the  labor  of  getting  at  the  essentials  is  great  for  the  lay  user. 

H.  M.  Lydenberg,  Reference  Librarian,  N.  Y.  Public  Library — The  impres- 
sion among  the  members  of  our  information  division  is  exceedingly  emphatic 
and  possibly  a  little  more  conclusive  than  any  statistics  we  could  furnish. 
They  say  if  it  is  a  choice  between  a  short  catalogue  and  no  catalogue,  give  us 
a  short  catalogue;  but  if  it  is  a  choice  between  a  short  catalogue  and  a  cata- 
logue of  adequate  bibliographical  description,  give  us  the  latter  every  time. 
If  we  do  not  have  the  latter,  we  must  in  hundreds  of  eases  go  to  the  shelves 
and  examine  the  book,  frequently  only  to  find  that  this  particular  copy  is  not 
the  one  we  want.  Most  of  the  time  we  can  tell  this  by  means  of  our  cata- 
logue entries. 

I  am  sure  that  the  fuller  bibliographical  information  given  on  our  cards 
is  much  more  helpful  than  the  inadequate  description  given  on  our  cards  in 
the  early  days  here.  We  should  need  more  people  and  the  work  w^ould  be 
slower  under  the  conditions  that  prevail  here  if  we  had  short  cataloguing 
rather  than  full  cataloguing, 

I  recognize  very  distinctly,  of  course,  that  there  is  a  danger  in  having 
"full  cataloguing"  so  full  that  it  is  misleading,  inadequate,  absurd.  We 
have  to  use  common  sense  and  strive  for  a  mean  rather  than  an  extreme  in 
either  case. 

I  hold  no  brief  for  any  particular  kind  of  cataloguing  and  certainly  do 
not  mean  to  urge  that  public  libraries,  such  as  ours,  should  catalogue  with 
the  minuteness  Dr.  Cole  is  doing  for  the  Huntington  Library,  or  the  minute- 
ness with  which  he  catalogued  the  Church  collection.  Some  books  need  the 
briefest  kind  of  entries.  In  other  cases  it  is  necessary  to  be  fuller.  The 
only  object  of  cataloguing  is  to  identify  the  book  and  give  an  idea  of  what  it 
talks  about  and  how  much  there  is  in  the  volume.  The  shorter  this  cata- 
loguing can  be  made,  the  better.  The  catalogue  is  only  a  guide,  a  medium, 
a  piece  of  mechanism,  and  the  less  obtrusive,  the  better.  It  has  to  be  sturdy 
enough,  of  course,  to  do  its  work. 

George  B.  Utley,  Librarian,  The  Newberry  Library — ^Having  had  some 
public  library  experience  I  can  easily  see  that  short  cataloguing  would  be 
adequate  for  a  considerable  portion  of  the  books  in  a  small  public  library 
consisting  of  the  more  popular  and  well-known  literature.  You  will  prob- 
ably get  this  point  of  view  from  public  libraries  you  have  addressed  and  so 
we  have,  as  you  will  see  from  Mr.  Merrill's  letter,  simply  based  our  reply 
on  our  own  experience. 

Wm.  Stetson  Merrill,  Head,  Public  Service  Department,  The  Newberry 

16 


Library — Inasmuch  as  libraries  can  purchase  ready  made  from  the  Library 
of  Congress  cards  with  all  the  requisite  data,  even  a  discussion  of  the  relative 
value  of  "long''  and  "short"  catalogues  seems  superfluous.  As  to  the 
books  for  which  Library  of  Congress  cards  cannot  be  obtained,  I  say :  make 
the  cards  as  nearly  like  the  L,  C,  form  as  you  can  afford  to  do.  I  have 
never  known  a  reader  to  complain  of  the  length  of  an  L.  C.  entry.  [Compare 
also  Mr.  Merrill  as  quoted  in  paper  above.] 

Azariah  S.  Root,  Librarian,  Oberlin  College  Library,  Oberlin,  Ohio — Our 
catalogue  is  a  catalogue  which  catalogues  books  and  pamphlets  with  nearly 
as  full  detail  as  does  the  Library  of  Congress.  We  should  not  know  how  to 
get  along  without  this  detailed  information  which  answers  very  many  ques- 
tions without  calling  for  the  book  itself. 

W.  L.  R.  Gifford,  Librarian,  St.  Louis  Mercantile  Library  Association — I 
have  consulted  with  our  assistant  librarian  and  with  the  reference  librarian, 
and  we  are  agreed  tha  the  questions  which  could  be  answered  by  a  full 
catalogue,  and  not  by  a  short  catalogue  or  bibliography,  would  not  amount 
to  ten  per  cent,  of  the  total  number. 

Walter  M.  Smith,  Librarian,  University  of  Wisconsin — We  have  no  statis- 
tics. Our  impression,  however,  is  that  in  a  library  of  this  character  there 
arise  a  relatively  small  number  of  questions  which  cannot  be  answered  by 
reference  to  a  short  catalogue  or  a  convenient  bibliography,  which  could  be 
answered  by  a  full  catalogue. 

S.  J.  Carter,  Ref.  Dept.,  Public  Library,  Milwaukee — We  decidedly  do 
not  favor  short  cataloguing.  The  fullest  treatment  as  to  analytical  and 
bibliographical  data  is  none  too  much  for  research  and  reference  service. 
Bibliographies  can  not  take  the  place,  for  effective  and  economical  work,  in 
putting  the  library 's  resources  at  the  disposal  of  the  user.  The  labor  and  ex- 
pense of  thorough  cataloguing  are  abundantly  compensated  by  the  increased 
availability  of  the  collection. 

Theresa  Hitchler,  Chief  Cataloguer,  Brooklyn  Public  Library— While  we 
haven't  kept  any  statistics  on  the  subject  I  think  I  can  safely  say  that  short 
cataloguing  as  it  is  understood  and  demonstrated  in  this  library,  will  answer 
practically  almost  any  question  the  average  public  may  ask. 

We  omit  bibliographical  details  but  we  in  no  way  curtail  or  economize  on 
subject  headings  or  cross  references,  analyzing  each  book  very  carefully 
and  fully,  more  fully  for  branches  with  small  collections  than  for  those  with 
a  greater  amount  and  variety  of  material  on  the  various  subjects. 

Our  Union  Catalogue  and  the  Catalogue  of  our  main  branch,  the  Mon- 
tague branch,  constituting  practically  our  Reference  library,  are  full  cata- 

17 


logues,  bibliographieally,  etc.  The  student  and  the  research  worker  seem  to 
require  the  bibliographical  information  furnished,  tho'  even  they  not  so 
often  as  one  might  think. 

The  Union  Catalogue  is  of  necessity  a  full  one,  for  by  its  record  we  are  en- 
abled to  differentiate  between  the  many  and  varied  editions,  translations, 
etc.,  of  works  by  the  same  or  similar  (as  regards  names)  authors  as  they  are 
added  to  our  (Tolleetion,  which  now  totals  989,000  volumes. 

Calvin  W.  Foss,  Reference  Department,  Brooklyn  Public  Library — We 
have  no  statistics  bearing  on  this  question.  My  experience  has  been  that  the 
ordinary  card  catalogue  falls  far  short  of  meeting  the  requirements  of  ref- 
erence work  in  a  public  library.  In  general,  I  should  say,  the  smaller  the 
library,  the  fuller  the  cataloguing  should  be. 

Of  course  there  are  objections  to  very  minute  analysis.  It  tends  to  congest 
the  catalogue  with  relatively  minor  entries,  and  the  ordinary  user  fails  to 
distinguish  them  from  more  important  ones. 

J.  C.  M.  Hanson,  Associate  Director,  University  of  Chicago — Personally,  I 
believe  that  the  question  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  the  short  title  catalogue 
as  against  the  fuller  was  settled  back  in  1848.  At  any  rate  the  evidence  of 
De  Morgan,  Crocker,  and  others,  before  Lord  Ellesmer'fe  Committee  on  the 
British  Museum  showed  conclusively  enough,  the  many  pit-falls  of  the  short 
title  catalogue.  Moreover,  I  consider  that  the  whole  question  is  tied  up  with 
that  of  the  subject  catalogue,  and  should  be  treated  with  special  reference  to 
the  latter.  The  person  who  knows  his  book,  and  wants  only  that  book,  can 
get  it  through  any  short  title  finding  list  arranged  by  authors '  names.  The 
searcher  who  is  not  thus  familiar  with  the  book  sought  for,  but  must  depend 
on  a  subject  catalogue,  will  need  guidance  beyond  that  provided  by  the  short 
title.  True,  someone  will  say,  ' '  let  him  turn  to  bibliographies  and  reviews. ' ' 
Yes,  how  often  has  not  that  been  tried,  and  how  often  has  not  the  bibliog- 
raphy and  the  review  been  found  wanting,  because  non-existent,  out  of  date, 
or  not  readily  accessible !  With  our  constituencies  trained  to  expect  assist- 
ance from  subject  catalogues,  and  a  large  proportion  of  our  entries  coming 
in  the  form  of  printed  cards  through  cooperative  enterprises,  I  should  con- 
sider an  attempt  to  substitute  the  brief  finding  list,  as  a  distinct  step  back- 
ward. We  might  as  well  ask  the  farmer  to  discard  his  self-binder,  as  to  ask 
the  librarian  to  revert  to  the  old  author  finding  list  as  his  chief  means  of  es- 
tablishing a  reasonably  safe  and  expeditious  connection  between  the  reader 
and  his  book. 

Marie  Louise  Prevost,  Head  Cataloguer,  Newark  Public  Library — Exper- 
ience has  seemed  to  show  us  that  full  bibliographical  entries  are  not  needed 

18 


in  a  public  library.  We  use  Library  of  Congress  cards  when  we  can  get  them 
without  waiting,  but  we  do  not  give  as  full  information  on  the  cards  we  write 
ourselves. 

The  number  of  volumes  is  used  in  place  of  paging.  Our  subject  cards  give 
full  title,  but  no  imprint  information  except  date.  Title  cards  and  analyticals 
give  short  title ;  and  date  on.  We  believe  in  cutting  work  wherever  pos- 
sible, but  there  is  one  omission  I  would  never  make,  which  is  that  of  pub- 
lisher on  the  main  entry. 

William  E.  Henry,  Librarian,  University  of  Washington — The  head  of  the 
Catalogue  Department  is  personally  of  the  opinion  that  in  a  University  li- 
brary such  as  ours  full  cataloguing  should  be  done.  He  feels  that  it  is  de- 
sirable not  only  for  the  greater  number  of  questions  that  can  be  answered, 
but  that  the  economies  supposed  to  follow  by  short  cataloguing  are  more 
apparent  than  real.  He  contends,  for  instance,  that  there  is  no  considerable 
time  saved  by  writing  "Bost."  instead  of  "Boston,"  as  the  most  of  the  time 
of  cataloguing  is  taken  in  an  examination  of  the  book.  He  believes,  more- 
over, that  fuller  cataloguing  leads  to  more  accurate  cataloguing,  since  an 
examination  of  the  book  for  details  often  brings  out  some  important  bit  of  in- 
formation which  would  be  entirely  overlooked  in  preparing  the  volume  for 
the  short  form. 

Our  reference  department  feels  that  there  are  decided  advantages  in  the 
fuller  cataloguing,  but  recognizes  advantages  in  the  short  form,  particularly 
the  economy  in  space  taken  by  the  catalogue.  In  libraries  such  as  yours, 
equipped  with  a  linotype  and  a  photostat  machine,  there  are,  of  course,  very 
special  advantages  in  the  short  form. 

Coming  back  to  your  question  as  to  the  number  of  questions  that  can  be 
answered  by  the  short  catalogue,  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  nearly  all 
student  use  of  the  catalogue  is  to  get  the  location  of  a  particular  book.  For 
that  purpose,  author,  title,  date  and  call  number  is  about  all  that  is  desired. 
If  the  library  contains  the  Library  of  Congress  depository  catalogue  and 
other  important  bibliographical  tools,  there  are  certainly  very  distinct  ad- 
vantages to  come  from  the  short  catalogue. 

Adam  Strohm,  Detroit  Public  Library — I  have  referred  the  question  to 
Reference,  Circulation  and  Technology  and  their  replies  are  attached. 

In  a  general  way,  and  judging  from  my  own  use  of  the  catalogue,  the 
Reference  staff  would  be  very  much  handicapped  by  any  system  of  short 
cataloguing,  while  that  part  of  the  public  who  may  wish  to  locate  specific 
books  would  "frequently  be  satisfied  with  less  bibliographical  data. 

19 


Short  cataloguing  would  mean  doing  away  with  L.  C.  cards.  Would  the 
gain  offset  the  loss? — Reference  Department. 

I  should  say  that  the  percentage  of  questions  that  could  be  answered  by 
the  short  catalogue  would  be  very  small  indeed. — Circulation  Department. 

Phineas  L.  Windsor,  Librarian,  The  University  of  Illinois  Library — The 
reference  librarians  have  submitted  the  following  note  which  with  us  is 
counted  by  them  an  argument  in  favor  of  a  full  catalogue : 

In  looking  up  subjects  in  which  many  of  the  books  are  scattered  in  dif- 
ferent dejiartments  libraries — and  the  majority  of  our  "catalogue  questions" 
are  of  this  nature — a  catalogue  giving  full  details  such  as  full  titles,  date, 
place  of  publication  or  publisher,  number  of  pages,  illustrations  and  maps, 
and  contents  notes,  seems  essential  to  prevent  the  inquirer's  time  being 
wasted  in  going  about  over  the  campus  for  plainly  unsuitable  books. 

Bernard  C.  Steiner,  Librarian,  The  Enoch  Pratt  Library — We  feel  that 
there  are  so  many  questions  which  can  only  be  answered  by  a  full  catalogue 
that  we  make  one  for  this  Library. 

A.  G.  S.  Josephson,  The  John  Crerar  Library — The  Reference  Librarian, 
Mr.  R.  J.  Usher,  and  I  agree  that  no  statistics  on  this  subject  could  properly 
be  prepared  for  this  Library.  When,  as  happened  last  Saturday,  a  large 
group  of  high  school  students  comes  in  the  questions  asked  may  probably  be 
answered  by  a  very  short-title  catalogue,  but  the  inquiries  from  specialists 
of  any  kind  require  for  proper  answer  a  catalogue  with  very  full  titles, 
and  when  necessary  contents  notes  or  explanatory  notes. 

Charles  F.  D.  Belden,  Librarian,  Boston  Public  Library — It  seems  to  be 
the  opinion  of  those  in  this  Library  who  have  had  the  most  experience  re- 
garding our  catalogue  and  its  use,  that  the  short  cataloguing  would  not 
do  at  all  for  this  Library  and  cannot  be  too  strongly  condemned. 

Some  years  ago,  by  order  of  the  Trustees,  the  catalogue  entries  were  short- 
ened to  "a  line  a  title"  or  as  nearly  that  as  possible.  All  such  titles  are  now 
being  re-entered  as  fast  as  they  are  noted  and  the  usual  full  entry  given. 

The  Chief  of  our  Catalogue  Department  ventures  to  say  that  three-quarters 
of  our  books  would  lose  a  good  part  of  their  usefulness  if  catalogued  in  the 
short  method. 

Charles  Martel,  Chief,  Catalogue  Division,  Library  of  Congress — As  to 
' '  questions  which  could  not  be  ansewered  by  reference  to  a  short  catalogue  or 
a  convenient  bibliography"  it  may  be  noted  that  it  is  a  matter  of  regret  and 
disappointment  and  loss  of  time  daily  on  the  part  of  readers  as  well  as  mem- 
bers of  the  staff  who  have  occasion  to  consult  the  first  aid  to  the  cataloguer — 
the  great  British  Museum  catalogue — to  find  the  entry  too  short  to  answer 
the  question  which  caused  the  catalogue  to  be  consulted. 

20 


Lura  'C.  Hutchinson,  Chief,  Reference  Department,  Minneapolis  Public 
Library — We  have  in  connection  with  our  circulation  department  a  short 
catalogue  including  author,  title,  and  one  subject  card  for  all  books.  It  is 
the  experience  of  those  working  at  the  desk  that  for  any  questions  requiring 
research  at  all,  resort  must  be  had  to  the  full  catalogue  in  the  reference  de- 
partment. In  fact  the  short  catalogue  is  a  good  deal  of  a  trial  to  the  flesh 
to  those  used  to  a  complete  one.  The  same  experience  is  brought  out  by  the 
fact  that  some  classes  of  books,  more  particularly  the  books  on  religion  in 
this  library,  have  never  been  fully  catalogued, — analytics,  translator  and 
added  subject  cards  having  been  omitted.  This  has  made  the  use  of  these 
books  exceedingly  difficult,  and  the  reference  department  will  be  exceedingly 
relieved  when  the  work  of  recataloguing  is  completed. 

Full  cataloguing  also  saves  time  in  the  long  run.  It  is  easier  for  the  cata- 
loguer with  the  book  in  her  hand  to  assign  all  possible  subject  entries  than  it 
is  for  the  bibliographer  to  hunt  up  the  material  afterwards.  And  bibliog- 
raphies are  so  incessantly  out  of  date,  a  heinous  crime  in  this  day  when  noth- 
ing bvit  the  latest  word  will  please  the  public.  We  do  use  bibliographies  fre- 
quently, but  find  after  all  that  the  catalogue,  covering  the  book  from  every 
possible  angle  except  size  and  color  (unfortunate  omissions)  is  our  best 
friend. 

Miss  Electra  C.  Doren — In  the  Dayton  Public  Library  both  with  our  old 
and  new  card  catalogues  the  policy  has  always  been  to  do  the  fullest,  most 
complete  cataloguing  called  for  by  the  books  themselves,  constantly  seeking 
the  most  economical  methods  to  accomplish  this  end. 

With  the  use  of  Library  of  Congress  printed  cards  the  question  of  full- 
ness or  abridgment  of  bibliographical  description  of  the  book  is  eliminated 
and  at  the  same  time  as  well,  the  great  expense  involved  in  such  original 
work  by  the  individual  library. 

This  service  of  the  Library  of  Congress  printed  cards  thus  allows  cata- 
loguing time  and  energy  to  be  applied  chiefly  to  the  contents  of  the  book  or 
to  the  subject  cataloguing  and  annotation,  with  such  additional  added  en- 
tries as  are  essential  clues  to  book,  author,  series,  etc. 

The  public  catalogue  must  serve  the  trained  (or  untrained)  reference 
worker  as  well  as  the  public  of  all  grades  of  intelligence  and  skill  who  use  it. 
To  meet  this  requirement  we  regard  as  complete  analysis  as  possible  neces- 
sary. 

There  is  a  place  still  to  be  filled,  however,  within  the  catalogue  itself 
(whether  full  or  abridged)  by  a  bibliographical  service  which  would  under- 
take for  popular  use  the  "convenient  bibliography"  kept  up-to-date  for  sub- 

21 


jects  of  current  or  perennial  interest.  Such  a  bibliographical  card  for  a 
subject  would  be  selective,  with  line  annotation  giving  distinctive  character- 
istics of  the  book,  and  should  be  kept  up-to-date  for  subjects  selected  for  this 
service. 

In  the  voluminous  growth  of  a  subject  the  non-expert  needs  such  a  guide  to 
select  the  essential  an^d  eliminate  the  out-of-date.  We  append  the  views  of 
Heads  of  our  Cataloguing  and  Reference  Departments,  and  also  of  our  West 
Carnegie  Branch  Librarian. 

"The  time  element,  as  it  affects  service,  seems  to  me  to  be  the  most  im- 
portant factor  in  the  consideration  of  the  relative  usefulness  of  the  full 
and  the  short  catalogue. 

"A  short  catalogue  or  'convenient  bibliography'  would  not  serve  the  pur- 
pose in  our  library.  No  doubt  many  of  the  questions  which  come  to  us  could 
be  answered  by  a  short  catalogue,  if  there  were  sufficient  time  to  do  the 
research  which  is  necessary  when  a  specific  subject  is  sought  through  gen- 
eral terms.  Our  reference  workers  are  constantly  under  rapid  fire  and,  as  a 
means  of  conserving  their  time,  a  detailed  catalogue  is  an  absolute  neces- 
sity. I  find  upon  questioning  each  one  of  them  independently,  that  they  con- 
sider a  full  catalogue  indispensable  and  would  welcome  still  further  analysis 
if  it  could  be  provided.' — (Signed)  Virginia  Hollingsworth,  Head  of  Cata- 
logue Department. 

"It  would  be  safe  to  say  that  scarcely  a  day  passes  in  which  some  difficulty 
is  not  experienced  in  locating  material  even  though  our  catalogue  is  quite 
full  in  treatment." — (Signed)  Frederick  H.  Cook,  Head  of  Eeference  De- 
partment.   . 

"Assuming  that  'short  cataloguing'  means  the  omission  of  analytics  and 
the  inclusion  of  only  broad,  general  subject  headings,  no  statistics  are  avail- 
able to  indicate  the  relative  number  of  questions  asked  at  West  Branch 
which  might  be  answered  by  reference  to  a  'short'  catalogue.  It  is  safe  to 
say,  however,  that  not  a  few  questions  might  be  unanswered,  for  often  in  a 
small  library  like  ours,  the  only  available  information  on  a  subject  may  be 
tucked  away  in  some  unexpected  or  obscure  place.  Even  the  most  exper- 
ienced assistant  may  overlook  such  a  source  if  it  is  not  brought  out  in  the 
catalogue.  Therefore,  it  seems  even  more  important  to  have  full  cataloguing 
in  a  small  library  than  in  a  large  one,  for,  the  material  being  necessarily  more 
limited,  it  is  essential  to  have  access  to  every  bit  of  available  information. 
Obvious  sources  will  be  known  by  an  assistant  without  reference  to  the 
catalogue.    It  is  when  these  fail  that  the  catalogue  is  consulted.    In  a  word, 

99 


in  our  branch  of  10,000  volumes,  we  find  the  analytic  invaluable."    ^^Signed) 
J.  L.  Hannaford,  Librarian,  West  Carnegie  Branch  Library. 

Miss  Louise  Prouty,  Librarian  of  the  Main  Library,  Cleveland  Public  Li- 
Ijrary — If  we  understand  by  the  term  "short  cataloguing"  the  limitation  of 
the  number  of  entries,  such  as  analyticals,  we  can  only  say  that  the  same 
problem  is  under  consideration  in  our  own  Library. 

"Whether  or  not  serial  publications  such  as  are  analyzed  in  the  Readers' 
Guide  Supplement  and  other  sources  should  be  analyzed  in  our  catalogue  pre- 
sents some  problems  to  our  Library  probably  in  common  with  other  libraries 
of  our  type.  For  a  Library  so  divided  by  subjects  into  special  divisions  as 
we  are,  with  a  duplicate  catalogue  in  each  division  for  the  material  in  the 
division,  it  would  be  a  loss  not  to  have  sets  analyzed,  as  obviouslj''  the  more 
general  bibliographies  like  the  Readers'  Guide  Supplement  could  not  be 
sufficiently  duplicated.  On  the  other  hand  such  multiplicity  of  entries  make 
a  catalogue  unwieldly  as  to  size,  and  because  of  this  we  are  seriously  con- 
sidering the  value  of  such  entries. 

Another  danger  however  of  omitting  these  analytics  in  any  large  library 
is  that  because  of  the  very  multiplicity  of  calls  and  of  resources,  it  is  time 
consuming  to  search  for  material  and  also  that  people  using  the  catalogue 
(and  they  use  it  in  this  Library  in  increasing  numbers)  would  often  fail  to 
suspect  other  sources.  The  absence  of  analytics  would  serious  affect  the 
small  library  because  of  the  absence  of  these  bibliographical  sources. 

If  you  are  referring  merely  to  the  question  of  full  or  brief  information 
upon  the  card  itself;  I  presume  that  two-thirds  of  the  questions  coming  to 
the  Library  could  be  answered  by  very  limited  information  as  to  fullness  of 
imprint,  etc.,  especially  where  the  U.  S.  Catalogue  is  convenient  for  users 
of  the  Library  Catalogue.  For  the  assumed  other  third ;  we  would  be  very 
much  at  a  loss  without  the  full  cataloguing,  and  should  judge  this  to  be  true 
of  the  smaller  libraries  also.  It  is  too  consuming  of  time  to  look  up  these 
details  in  a  large  library  and  in  a  small  one  there  would  be  a  lack  of  the 
necessary  tools.  However,  the  purchase  of  the  Library  of  Congress  cards 
would  obviate  the  necessity  for  considering  such  a  problem.  "We  have  no 
statistics  to  prove  either  point,  but  are  very  greatly  interested  in  the  sub- 
ject and  trust  that  the  discussion  at  the  Atlantic  City  meeting  will  be  a 
profitable  one. 


23 


mmm^ 


ff^    I    };'.  \J.^-r'- 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD27Sn33fl 


iii 


mm 


;  'sftA^Wi 


